People who watch Fox News and MSNBC, least informed

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2014 10:37 AM GMT
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

    “Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News,” said Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and an analyst for the PublicMind Poll. “Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all.”

    The kicker is that MSNBC didn’t do all that much better. In one question, some 11% of MSNBC viewers actually believed that Occupy Wall Street protesters were Republicans compared to just 3% of Fox viewers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2014 11:04 AM GMT
    "Readers of The New York Times, USA Today and listeners to National Public Radio were better informed about international events than other media outlets."

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

    " 11% of MSNBC viewers actually believed that Occupy Wall Street protesters were Republicans compared to just 3% of Fox viewers"
    ---suggesting that 11% of viewers have their televisions on MUTE.



    " the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all.”
    ---Simply WOW!


    "Fox News is the leading cable news channel."
    --Even Worse!
  • BIG_N_TALL

    Posts: 2190

    Jul 02, 2014 3:18 PM GMT
    The problem with both FOX and MSNBC (and increasingly CNN as well) is that these outlets are more about talk shows and people's opinions than delivering factual information. NPR and Charlie Rose are essentially the gold standard for journalism today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2014 3:22 PM GMT
    the challenge is to watch Fox News or Huffington Post because you dont agree with what they are saying.

    i like something searchable, so i get to read home decorating only if i want to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2014 3:25 PM GMT
    You come a bit late to the game: surely I'm not the only one who noticed that this poll - and the original story parrotting it - is nearly THREE YEARS OLD. A LOT has changed then, but I continue to get my news from a variety of sources, including FNC, MSNBC, and NPR (since I'm obliged to help fund the latter), and then check the facts before forming my own opinions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2014 5:25 PM GMT
    As a politics major, I actually noticed that when I read NYT or the Washington Post, or listen to NPR, I felt more informed and less combative than when I watched MSNBC. Now I stomach as much of televised news as I can so that I can observe the way they tell the news, versus the content of the stories they cover. (Perhaps not-so-interestingly, it only takes me five minutes before I'm done with Fox News, whereas I can watch an hour or so of NPR).

    Informed, and yet not angry? What a novel idea.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2014 5:42 PM GMT
    BIG_N_TALL saidThe problem with both FOX and MSNBC (and increasingly CNN as well) is that these outlets are more about talk shows and people's opinions than delivering factual information. NPR and Charlie Rose are essentially the gold standard for journalism today.

    I agree completel. I lile MSNBC generally and the pure news shows are good, but most of the time I watch CNN or Telefrance 2 for solid news. Telefrance 2 is the English langugfe news channel of French National TV. Excellent coverage of world news
  • fitartistsf

    Posts: 638

    Jul 02, 2014 6:21 PM GMT
    I find I am very informed with Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC... While Sean Hannity is shouting down his liberal guests, or anyone that doesn't agree with him, and the rest of Faux News is harping still on O'care and Bengazi, at least MSNBC is commenting and reporting on more up to date, topical stories...
    I will say I do subject myself to a couple of minutes of Fuck News, if only to clarify my belief that Hannity, O'Reilly, Kelly, Patin, Coulter, Rove, et al, should all be lined up against a wall and publicly shot.... it just seems mind-boggling to me that they ACTUALLY BELIEVE the shit they are spewing out...

    As a side note... does anyone remember just how fantastic CNN was in the 80's, 90's, and 00's??? THEY were the gold standard back then....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2014 6:23 PM GMT
    fitartistsf saidI find I am very informed with Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC... While Sean Hannity is shouting down his liberal guests, or anyone that doesn't agree with him, and the rest of Faux News is harping still on O'care and Bengazi, at least MSNBC is commenting and reporting on more up to date, topical stories...
    I will say I do subject myself to a couple of minutes of Fuck News, if only to clarify my belief that Hannity, O'Reilly, Kelly, Patin, Coulter, Rove, et al, should all be lined up against a wall and publicly shot.... it just seems mind-boggling to me that they ACTUALLY BELIEVE the shit they are spewing out...

    As a side note... does anyone remember just how fantastic CNN was in the 80's, 90's, and 00's??? THEY were the gold standard back then....


    Thank you for illustrating the original point. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2014 9:41 PM GMT
    fitartistsf saidI find I am very informed with Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC


    Please don't leave out CHRIS HAYES and JOY REID...or ARI MELBER.

  • fitartistsf

    Posts: 638

    Jul 02, 2014 10:18 PM GMT
    Determinate said
    fitartistsf saidI find I am very informed with Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC


    Please don't leave out CHRIS HAYES and JOY REID...or ARI MELBER.




    Yes, right, sorry, I did forget them... I don't usually get a chance to watch them, but they are just as informed as the two I do watch regularly... My apologies...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2014 10:44 PM GMT
    I saw Rachel speak live in Atlanta. She was wonderful of course----and to be with 2,000 or so intelligent information-seekers...was reaffirming.

    The liberal-haters on RJ seem to think that Progressives are "Like-Minded" as if we've all come to the same conclusions regarding the issues. Hardly!

    But we do have an openness to finding solutions that today's Conservatives would be wise to adopt.
  • wild_sky360

    Posts: 1492

    Jul 02, 2014 10:55 PM GMT
    Time and a place for both..??sides??... Biggest lesson learned is that both sides massage the truth and reality is somewhere in between....or just as likely... not even remotely part of the diversionary shouting match.

    Train your mind, through exposure to other ideas, to recognize bullshit and manipulation unless of course, you're comfortable being led around by your nose ring...most people are. It's much easier to be smug and to get a daily affirmation of what you think is the truth than to actually think things through for yourself...especially when it sometimes flies against everything that you THINK that you KNOW.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2014 11:27 PM GMT
    On the surface it's easy to appreciate the inoffensive vagueness of a statement like "The truth is probably somewhere in the middle."

    But I think it's healthier for us to try to decide, at least on a few issues we care about.

    The key is to have the humility and ongoing openness to allow us to change our minds.


    I read the WSJ, The American Conservative and writers like David Frum and Ross Douthat regularly.

    I don't think of Conservatives as "the other side". I think their views are valuable IF we're talking about smart and honest individuals.

    Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Mark Savage, Herman Cain(and the list goes on) add nothing.
  • wild_sky360

    Posts: 1492

    Jul 03, 2014 12:23 AM GMT
    Determinate saidOn the surface it's easy to appreciate the inoffensive vagueness of a statement like "The truth is probably somewhere in the middle."

    But I think it's healthier for us to try to decide, at least on a few issues we care about.

    The key is to have the humility and ongoing openness to allow us to change our minds.


    I read the WSJ, The American Conservative and writers like David Frum and Ross Douthat regularly.

    I don't think of Conservatives as "the other side". I think their views are valuable IF we're talking about smart and honest individuals.

    Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Mark Savage, Herman Cain(and the list goes on) add nothing.


    I think we're in agreement on both the value of opposition opinions and especially on infotainment that is designed to raise the blood pressure, regardless of the viewer.

    I wonder if these high profile instigators are as provocative in person, candidly...no cameras..after a few drinks. I'd think not. What a horrible way to live if I'm wrong on that one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2014 1:02 AM GMT
    From the pollsters:

    "We never said, nor meant to say, that Fox viewers are dumb -- or MSNBC viewers for that matter. They're no better or worse than the average respondents. Clearly, anyone who is dumb and watching TV was dumb when he or she sat down in front of the tube. Some news sources just don't help matters any. "

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-j-woolley/fox-news-does-not-make-yo_b_1519284.html
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Jul 03, 2014 1:20 AM GMT
    A_Montax1 saidAs a politics major, I actually noticed that when I read NYT or the Washington Post, or listen to NPR, I felt more informed and less combative than when I watched MSNBC. Now I stomach as much of televised news as I can so that I can observe the way they tell the news, versus the content of the stories they cover. (Perhaps not-so-interestingly, it only takes me five minutes before I'm done with Fox News, whereas I can watch an hour or so of NPR).

    Informed, and yet not angry? What a novel idea.


    I also lose patience when watching news programs on commercial TV stations. It tends to be more entertainment than news. They generally have two newscasters who real alternate lines for no reason except entertainment. If there is a serious car accident, they have updates every few minutes even when there is nothing new of importance to announce. They omit information that the public needs. For example, not long ago, there were reports of accidents caused by stuck accelerators or other mechanical failures. The reports showed injured victims and crying family members. However, they never advised the public what to do if an accelerator stuck or some other problem made it difficult to control the car.

    Of course no one who reads the news can also read the weather forecast, so they have someone else to do that and he also tells jokes. There are constant commercial interruptions. The commercials are delivered by an announcer who sounds as though he is lecturing naughty children or coaching a children's soccer team. Unfortunately, almost all products are advertised like that thereby making it impossible to avoid buying products promoted by obnoxious ads. And all during the commercials, there are annoying banging, clunking, or crashing sounds.

    PBS does much better, but there is still room for improvement. For example, they aired a program about the problems of nuclear waste. They concluded that there is no available solution. However, they failed to cover types of nuclear reactors that could use the existing waste as fuel thereby reducing it to about 1% of its current volume. In perusing a PBS website, I found that several viewers had advised PBS of other types of nuclear reactors, including the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) that could possibly solve the nuclear waste problem and other problems associated with nuclear power, but they have never covered that on their programs.

    It seems clear that to be adequately informed, one must use a wide variety of news sources since most have an agendum that limits their coverage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2014 1:35 AM GMT
    fitartistsf saidI find I am very informed with Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC ... at least MSNBC is commenting and reporting on more up to date, topical stories...


    "Up to date" stories like this two and a half year-old relic?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2014 3:51 AM GMT
    Anyone who relies on television news AT ALL is bound to be ignorant and brainwashed. Fox News is just the extreme version, a type of parody of itself and its medium. TV news is essentially entertainment and distraction, nothing more.

    There's a good Mark Twain quote (back before TV news):

    "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed."

    That remains true today. Every paper has its bias, its corporate owners, billionaire investors and plutocratic interests. The New York Times and the Financial Times are two good examples. However, these are important papers to read nonetheless. After all, the 'elite' (or rather, ruling class) of society have to communicate with each other and with the educated sectors (the technocrats, academics, professionals, etc.) through the media. The NYT articulates the 'elite consensus' in the United States. It supports whatever president is in power, promotes whatever war is being sold, and provides the pseudo-intellectual discourse for general support to institutions and power structures as a whole... allowing - at the very limits - mild criticisms of policies, individuals and specifics. But because it is "the paper of record", it happens to have more reported directly within it.

    The key to reading the New York Times, like all news media, is to extract the facts, and ignore the interpretation, which is generally void of any historical context or understanding (amnesic, if you will), and worshipping of power.

    The Financial Times is even more important, because it is the paper written for those who run nations, banks, corporations, international organizations, etc. That is their general constituency, and they have writers (such as Martin Wolf) who are considered to be the "most influential" economic and financial commentators in the world. It's probably the paper I read the most, not because I agree with their interpretation or view of the world (it's generally the exact opposite, actually), but because they tend to be more blunt and accurate in their actual reporting, because they are communicating with an audience that is 'supposed' to be more informed (though still indoctrinated).

    When it comes to network "news", on the other hand, it's meaningless, pointless, mindless entertainment and numbing distractions. It is designed to simply provide the illusion of information, while being almost entirely void of any substance whatsoever. Fox News, Sky, BBC, CBC, CTV, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc.... it doesn't matter what acronym is used, it's not worth the time. If you want actual news, you have to read. If you want entertainment and distraction, there are far better television programs than the nightly news.

    I leave you now with a scene from the 1976 film 'Network', written by Paddy Chayefsky (in what I consider to be the best script ever written), which was a satirical and brilliant take on the transformation and corporatization of network news and dehumanization of society as a whole:



    A little background on Chayefsky and the writing of 'Network':
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/16/paddy-chayefsky-the-dark-prophet-of-network-news.html
  • Joeyphx444

    Posts: 2382

    Jul 03, 2014 6:27 AM GMT
    It's not that you watch Fox or CNN, it's the fact that you watch that and ONLY that. I watch and read as many news outlets I can. I make sure I get many views and opinions on one topic.

    I love when threads have an article for example, about marijuana and the link is to some site which is CLEARLY pro-marijuana or anti. This is why we need to educate ourselves and read from multiple sources. People just take what is given to them and believe it with little to no research or questioning. THIS is why people are messed up
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Jul 03, 2014 6:58 AM GMT
    Joeyphx444 saidIt's not that you watch Fox or CNN, it's the fact that you watch that and ONLY that. I watch and read as many news outlets I can. I make sure I get many views and opinions on one topic.

    I love when threads have an article for example, about marijuana and the link is to some site which is CLEARLY pro-marijuana or anti. This is why we need to educate ourselves and read from multiple sources. People just take what is given to them and believe it with little to no research or questioning. THIS is why people are messed up


    Many people read only material that they expect will support what they already believe. Fortunately some of us are more erudite and make a point of learning multiple viewpoints, including viewpoints with which we don't expect to agree.
  • wild_sky360

    Posts: 1492

    Jul 03, 2014 8:51 AM GMT
    wordwarrior saidAnyone who relies on television news AT ALL is bound to be ignorant and brainwashed. Fox News is just the extreme version, a type of parody of itself and its medium. TV news is essentially entertainment and distraction, nothing more.

    There's a good Mark Twain quote (back before TV news):

    "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed."

    That remains true today. Every paper has its bias, its corporate owners, billionaire investors and plutocratic interests. The New York Times and the Financial Times are two good examples. However, these are important papers to read nonetheless. After all, the 'elite' (or rather, ruling class) of society have to communicate with each other and with the educated sectors (the technocrats, academics, professionals, etc.) through the media. The NYT articulates the 'elite consensus' in the United States. It supports whatever president is in power, promotes whatever war is being sold, and provides the pseudo-intellectual discourse for general support to institutions and power structures as a whole... allowing - at the very limits - mild criticisms of policies, individuals and specifics. But because it is "the paper of record", it happens to have more reported directly within it.

    The key to reading the New York Times, like all news media, is to extract the facts, and ignore the interpretation, which is generally void of any historical context or understanding (amnesic, if you will), and worshipping of power.

    The Financial Times is even more important, because it is the paper written for those who run nations, banks, corporations, international organizations, etc. That is their general constituency, and they have writers (such as Martin Wolf) who are considered to be the "most influential" economic and financial commentators in the world. It's probably the paper I read the most, not because I agree with their interpretation or view of the world (it's generally the exact opposite, actually), but because they tend to be more blunt and accurate in their actual reporting, because they are communicating with an audience that is 'supposed' to be more informed (though still indoctrinated).

    When it comes to network "news", on the other hand, it's meaningless, pointless, mindless entertainment and numbing distractions. It is designed to simply provide the illusion of information, while being almost entirely void of any substance whatsoever. Fox News, Sky, BBC, CBC, CTV, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc.... it doesn't matter what acronym is used, it's not worth the time. If you want actual news, you have to read. If you want entertainment and distraction, there are far better television programs than the nightly news.

    I leave you now with a scene from the 1976 film 'Network', written by Paddy Chayefsky (in what I consider to be the best script ever written), which was a satirical and brilliant take on the transformation and corporatization of network news and dehumanization of society as a whole:



    A little background on Chayefsky and the writing of 'Network':
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/16/paddy-chayefsky-the-dark-prophet-of-network-news.html


    Dayuuum. I should have written this one. Who is this wordwarrior? Wow...He's my favorite former rj'r returned. I love your contributions on global research, RT, Corbett etc. as well as missing your irrefutable "last word" posts here on rj. I'm glad you can take the time to keep it real over here too.
  • Kjonyou

    Posts: 93

    Jul 03, 2014 9:38 AM GMT
    Well the problem is, most people who watch FOX news ONLY watch FOX news. They are convinced by slogans "fair and balanced" and "liberal media" not to even watch something else.

    You could say that about MSNBC viewers but I have not found the same to be true. While I am sure people who watch MSNBC really like their shows most of the people I have talked to have a more open mind to comparing what other news sources say.

    I think its very misinformed to say they are both the same or they are both bad, that is just lazy logic. Facts can be measured and they come out overwhelming poor for FOX News compared to all the other sources.

    One of the reasons I dislike FOX is they dont even bother to let you know they are spewing opinion. They call themselves reporters which most of them are not. At least MSNBC and people like Rachel Maddow call them self commentators.

    People like Rachel Maddow are at least qualified to talk about the issues. Most Fox viewers who hate her dont realize she has a Doctorate Degree in Political Science. Meanwhile, FOX just keeps hiring bold bombos who will spew Obama hate 24 hours a day. No qualifications other then looking pretty and reading a teleprompter.

    Finally, MSNBC will give credit where credit is due. I just saw that the other day with Laurence O'Donnell thanking the Coke Brothers. I have NEVER seen FOX ever give even the slightest inch to liberals, Obama or MSNBC. That right there tells my you are incapable of reason. No one is 100% right all the time for 20 years.

    So they are not the same, please open your eyes.
  • fitartistsf

    Posts: 638

    Jul 03, 2014 1:02 PM GMT
    kjonyou saidWell the problem is, most people who watch FOX news ONLY watch FOX news. They are convinced by slogans "fair and balanced" and "liberal media" not to even watch something else.

    You could say that about MSNBC viewers but I have not found the same to be true. While I am sure people who watch MSNBC really like their shows most of the people I have talked to have a more open mind to comparing what other news sources say.

    I think its very misinformed to say they are both the same or they are both bad, that is just lazy logic. Facts can be measured and they come out overwhelming poor for FOX News compared to all the other sources.

    One of the reasons I dislike FOX is they dont even bother to let you know they are spewing opinion. They call themselves reporters which most of them are not. At least MSNBC and people like Rachel Maddow call them self commentators.

    People like Rachel Maddow are at least qualified to talk about the issues. Most Fox viewers who hate her dont realize she has a Doctorate Degree in Political Science. Meanwhile, FOX just keeps hiring bold bombos who will spew Obama hate 24 hours a day. No qualifications other then looking pretty and reading a teleprompter.

    Finally, MSNBC will give credit where credit is due. I just saw that the other day with Laurence O'Donnell thanking the Coke Brothers. I have NEVER seen FOX ever give even the slightest inch to liberals, Obama or MSNBC. That right there tells my you are incapable of reason. No one is 100% right all the time for 20 years.

    So they are not the same, please open your eyes.


    + 1,000,000... Thank you!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2014 2:43 PM GMT
    I'm not sure how much it's is less informed as it is choosing what you want to believe what you choose to believe. The times is a rag. Just a rag of a different color. It takes work to be informed. Most people don't have the time or inclination